NHL announces new draft lottery odds

[Deebo]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=728795&navid=DL|NHL|home

The first % is the new chance, the second is the old

1 20.0% 25.0%
2 13.5% 18.8%
3 11.5% 14.2%
4 9.5% 10.7%
5 8.5% 8.1%
6 7.5% 6.2%
7 6.5% 4.7%
8 6.0% 3.6%
9 5.0% 2.7%
10 3.5% 2.1%
11 3.0% 1.5%
12 2.5% 1.1%
13 2.0% 0.8%
14 1.0% 0.5%

The new odds change for the 2015 draft and the starting in 2016, the first 3 picks will be determined by lottery.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Couple this with the change from last year that led to any non-playoff team being able to move up to 1st overall by winning the lottery and the the odds of the 30th place team picking 1st overall have gone from 48.2% to just 20% in about a year. That's quite the drastic change.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Also, how pissed is Buffalo right now? At least they should still be able to guarantee themselves Eichel.

 

[Deebo]

I would like to see equal odds for all non-playoff teams, one ball each, pick one out at a time and there is your draft order.

 

[L K]

Couple this with the change from last year that led to any non-playoff team being able to move up to 1st overall by winning the lottery and the the odds of the 30th place team picking 1st overall have gone from 48.2% to just 20% in about a year. That's quite the drastic change.

I'm glad.  Still a low chance of winning as the 17th placed team but it really devalues being exceptionally bad.  There is still a benefit to tanking but it doesn't guarantee you the #1 pick which I can approve of.

It's not nearly as bad in the NHL but what the Philadelphia 76ers are doing in the NBA right now is a perfect example of why this type of change is good for the game.

 

[Deebo]

Couple this with the change from last year that led to any non-playoff team being able to move up to 1st overall by winning the lottery and the the odds of the 30th place team picking 1st overall have gone from 48.2% to just 20% in about a year. That's quite the drastic change.

I'm glad.  Still a low chance of winning as the 17th placed team but it really devalues being exceptionally bad.  There is still a benefit to tanking but it doesn't guarantee you the #1 pick which I can approve of.

It's not nearly as bad in the NHL but what the Philadelphia 76ers are doing in the NBA right now is a perfect example of why this type of change is good for the game.

The NBA has a lottery similar to what the NHL is changing to in 2016.

 

[L K]

Couple this with the change from last year that led to any non-playoff team being able to move up to 1st overall by winning the lottery and the the odds of the 30th place team picking 1st overall have gone from 48.2% to just 20% in about a year. That's quite the drastic change.

I'm glad.  Still a low chance of winning as the 17th placed team but it really devalues being exceptionally bad.  There is still a benefit to tanking but it doesn't guarantee you the #1 pick which I can approve of.

It's not nearly as bad in the NHL but what the Philadelphia 76ers are doing in the NBA right now is a perfect example of why this type of change is good for the game.

The NBA has a lottery similar to what the NHL is changing to in 2016.

The NBA also has a league that can be influenced far more by an individual talent than the NHL.  The NBA is looking to reform their draft policy for as early as this season although I doubt any rule change would actually come into effect this year to actually punish the 76ers. 

 

[Kin]

I don't know how much I like the idea of making things more random as a solution to the issue of tanking. At the very least the thought behind tanking gives you as a fan an idea about how smart people running your team can choose the right path. If things are more random it really just closes off that path without really giving teams alternate strategies.

 

[rdowdall]

I don't know how much I like the idea of making things more random as a solution to the issue of tanking. At the very least the thought behind tanking gives you as a fan an idea about how smart people running your team can choose the right path. If things are more random it really just closes off that path without really giving teams alternate strategies.

If any thing, all this really does is accentuate luck.

 

[Kin]

I don't know how much I like the idea of making things more random as a solution to the issue of tanking. At the very least the thought behind tanking gives you as a fan an idea about how smart people running your team can choose the right path. If things are more random it really just closes off that path without really giving teams alternate strategies.

If any thing, all this really does is accentuate luck.

Well, that would be one thing if they at least went the whole way with it. If every non-playoff team's odds at the top pick were the same there'd be no reason to tank and nobody would tank. But all this does is marginally lower the incentive while still not giving bad teams any actual incentive to win all the games they can.

 

[rdowdall]

I don't know how much I like the idea of making things more random as a solution to the issue of tanking. At the very least the thought behind tanking gives you as a fan an idea about how smart people running your team can choose the right path. If things are more random it really just closes off that path without really giving teams alternate strategies.

If any thing, all this really does is accentuate luck.

Well, that would be one thing if they at least went the whole way with it. If every non-playoff team's odds at the top pick were the same there'd be no reason to tank and nobody would tank. But all this does is marginally lower the incentive while still not giving bad teams any actual incentive to win all the games they can.

Really the problem is that a bad team needs to have a way of getting better somehow other than the draft.  I understand that tanking calls in to question the integrity of the games played, but if your team is bad, and you know your team is bad, then how are they supposed to get better?  Currently the draft is the standard way of doing it.  It's gotten to the point where finishing in the bottom ten isn't even considered a good way of getting better.  The media consensus now is that you have to finish in the bottom 3 in order to become a true contender in the league.  However even that model doesn't appear to be working for teams like Edmonton or Florida.  Yes we keep hearing about how good they are going to be some day, but it seems to be taking a while to get there.

For me the problem is that for all of the talk about parity in the league, what I really see is very little movement between the teams that make the playoffs and those that don't.  Pieces may change, but rarely are they significant pieces, and I think that creates this status quo year in and year out.  Yes, someday in the future the Penguins will not have Crosby and Malkin and they will miss the playoffs, but that is probably a long way off.  You have teams like Florida, Edmonton and Toronto mired in these horrible droughts where they cannot make the playoffs with any sort of reliability, and with no real way of course correcting.  It seems that all they have done is punish those teams that much more, and they have made it that much harder for anyone to improve themselves.

 

[Kin]

Really the problem is that a bad team needs to have a way of getting better somehow other than the draft.  I understand that tanking calls in to question the integrity of the games played, but if your team is bad, and you know your team is bad, then how are they supposed to get better?  Currently the draft is the standard way of doing it.  It's gotten to the point where finishing in the bottom ten isn't even considered a good way of getting better.  The media consensus now is that you have to finish in the bottom 3 in order to become a true contender in the league.  However even that model doesn't appear to be working for teams like Edmonton or Florida.  Yes we keep hearing about how good they are going to be some day, but it seems to be taking a while to get there.

For me the problem is that for all of the talk about parity in the league, what I really see is very little movement between the teams that make the playoffs and those that don't.  Pieces may change, but rarely are they significant pieces, and I think that creates this status quo year in and year out.  Yes, someday in the future the Penguins will not have Crosby and Malkin and they will miss the playoffs, but that is probably a long way off.  You have teams like Florida, Edmonton and Toronto mired in these horrible droughts where they cannot make the playoffs with any sort of reliability, and with no real way of course correcting.  It seems that all they have done is punish those teams that much more, and they have made it that much harder for anyone to improve themselves.

Well, and not to sound overly-Darwinian, but while teams need to have a route to getting better there also shouldn't be a guarantee that incompetence will yield tangible rewards. Striving for parity isn't the same thing as making running a team idiot-proof.

I think you're sort of confusing finishing with high draft picks as a way to get better and having high draft picks as a guarantee that you'll get better. Edmonton isn't an example of the failures of the draft as a means of rewarding bad teams, Edmonton is an example of how the disadvantage of being a poorly run franchise will trump whatever advantages they might get because of their poor finishes. Like you say, finishing in the top three is the best way to acquire game-changing talent but you still have to manage your cap well and scout well and make the best possible use of those draft picks. Edmonton, I think you'd agree, have not done a particularly good job in using the high picks they've had.

That's what I'd suggest. Give teams at the bottom a path towards the top but make the degree of difficulty higher. Personally, I'd do away with the draft altogether and institute a system a little bit like Baseball's where your finish dictates how much money you can allocate to incoming 18 year olds(with the worst team getting the most) but letting the young players decide where they go.